With the 172-page ruling, including a majority
opinion penned byChief Justice Ronald M. George, California
becomes the second U.S. state behind Massachusetts to allow
gay marriage, according to news reports (See
Massachusetts Court
Says Gays Entitled to Marry
).
The decision was a product of a deeply divided court
that narrowly approved the final holding 4 to 3.

class=”times”>However, the decision
isn’t likely to have much impact on companies’
obligations to employees, Margaret Hart Edwards, a San
Francisco employment lawyer at Littler Mendelson, told the
Wall Street Journal. State laws already require that
domestic partners receive the benefits granted to married
couples, she said (see
Murky Waters
). Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut
now permit civil unions, while California already had a
domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other
states give gay couples some legal rights.

The latest decision grew out of the
highly-publicized series of same-sex weddings in San
Francisco.

After a month of jubilant same-sex
weddings, the California Supreme Court ordered the city
to stop issuing licenses to gay couples, later
invalidated the licenses, and declined to rule on the
constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage
until lower courts acted first, the media reports
said.

A San Francisco trial judge decided in
2005 that gays should be permitted to wed, but a state
appellate court later overturned that decision on a 2-1
vote, ruling that only the Legislature or the voters
could change California’s traditional definition of
marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Thursday’s holding by the state’s
high court threw out that appellate decision.

Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriage
argued that the marriage law discriminated on the basis of
both gender and sexual orientation, while their opponents
countered that both women and men were barred from marrying
members of their own sex.Supporters claimedCalifornia's domestic-partner law, which gives
gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples
regarding financial support, property, child custody, and
taxes doesn't go far enough in providing equal
treatment to same-sex couples.

"In light of all of these circumstances, we
conclude that retention of the traditional definition of
marriage does not constitute a state interest
sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal
protection standard, to justify withholding that status
from same-sex couples," George wrote in the majority
holding. "Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of
(state law) draw a distinction between opposite-sex
couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from
access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these
statutes are unconstitutional."

The reaction outside the courthouse in
San Francisco was one of jubilation as couples hugged,
kissed, shouted, and shook their fists at the sky, the
news accounts said. Holding up a sign that says,
"Life feels different when you're married,"
Helen Pontac told a reporter she was beyond words.

"Oh, wow," she said. "It felt so good when
we got married in San Francisco. This feels
better."

A Strong Reaction

Opponents of same-sex-marriage had a much
different reaction, the news reports said. Ron Prentice,
executive director of the Sacramento and Riverside-based
California Family Council, said the group was "not
surprised by the ruling, though extremely
disappointed."

According to the media reports, there is a strong
chance voters will be weighing a ballot initiative to
change the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex
marriage. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger previously
announced his opposition to the ballot initiative and
reiterated his opposition Thursday.

"I respect the court's decision and as
governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger
said within minutes of the ruling. "Also, as I have
said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the
constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court
ruling."

Prentice said his group expects
"that with the November ballot we will have the
opportunity for the people of California to once again
define marriage as only between a man and a woman and
this time place it into California's constitution
which would strengthen it and keep it out of the hands of
the courts."

In Thursday's majority opinion, George said the
ruling should result in state officials handling marriage
licenses doing so in a manner consistent with the
decision.

"We determine that the language (in state law)
limiting the designation of marriage to a union
"between a man and a woman" â€¦ and that the
remaining statutory language must be understood as making
the designation of marriage available both to
opposite-sex and same-sex couples," George wrote.
"In addition, because the limitation of marriage to
opposite-sex couples imposed by (California law) can have
no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion,
that provision cannot stand. Plaintiffs are entitled to
the issuance of a (court order) directing the appropriate
state officials to take all actions necessary to
effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that
county clerks and other local officials throughout the
state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage
statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions
in a manner consistent with the decision of this
court."